Eco-labels have led to furious disagreements across a wide range of industries and things look unlikely to change in the future as the FSC looks to promote its latest brand of sound forest management

by Jim Kenny

There's always room for argument

If there is one topic that is almost always sure to start a good argument, it is certification. In fact, anything to do with the environment is usually a good subject to get on to if you want to kick off a lively debate at a paper industry function. But certification is really the best if you're looking to cause a stir.

There are probably several reasons for this, but to take one of the more human responses, fiber producers feel that they are involved in an industry that is quite literally cultivating the environment, while most environmentalists think almost exactly the opposite.

That apart, the other major point of contention comes down to the sheer complexity of the task in both agreeing what is environmentally-sound practice, and ensuring that a stamp of approval actually means something relevant to the stakeholders involved.

In this month's issue, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has responded to the rather robust comments made by the Ken Shirley in his Viewpoint piece earlier this year. Among other things, Shirley accused the FSC of discriminating against "certain forest products, companies and countries, depending on their size, ownership pattern, condition of the forest, end-product and timber-type".

Since Shirley was wearing his International Standards Organization (ISO) hat as chairman/convenor of the forestry working group and the FSC has been involved in a long-running (but publicly polite) feud with ISO, it is perhaps not too surprising that the FSC has responded in kind. The FSC's UK coordinator, Hannah Scrase, argues that the organization does not discriminate against forest or product types, but in favor of well-managed products.

This is an argument that is likely to rage as long as most of the other certification arguments that have gone on in the past. One the one hand, certification is naturally discriminatory. Certain groups and companies are always going to be rejected by the certification process. At the same time, the rejects may rightly feel that they are not in the process of ravaging the planet. Indeed, even if everyone eventually complied, this would simply raise accusations that the certification process was not tough enough and the bar would be raised to make it more difficult to qualify. This in turn would draw further complaints from everyone that had struggled to comply in the first place and so it goes on.

Accepting compromise

Since Shirley and Scrase are both adults, it is clearly not for PPI to act as referee. But it seems apparent that there are areas where both the ISO system and the FSC's principles can be formulated to work together. The real argument comes down to whether the two groups and the personalities involved are prepared to work together and accept the compromises involved in coming to an agreement.

In fact, the same argument goes for the FSC and the paper industry as a whole. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that there is enough suspicion of the FSC within the sector to ensure that any differences are unlikely to melt away in the foreseeable future.

One of the most recent examples comes from the Finnish Forest Industries Federation (FFIF). It is clear that the federation believes its members are behaving responsibly and reasonably with regard to the environment. The FFIF even point to the fact that WWF environmental score cards for Europe put Finland second, with Sweden in fifth place. But the fact is that most Finnish forest owners refuse to tolerate the administrative burden the FSC's system imposes or the significant constraints it imposes on their ability to make decisions about their business. They are not alone in this attitude.

FFIF concedes that there is demand for FSC certification, mainly in the UK, but without a wider consensus among producers, it is now proposing yet another eco-label from the Pan-European Forest Certification Initiative to be used instead. The end result is very likely to be yet more arguments, added frustration for everyone concerned and even more confusion for the poor consumer - that is, the ones that haven't already given up caring what all those funny little symbols are for anyway.

Given the industry's experience of eco-labels to date, it is very likely that the FSC's scheme will serve to promote a host of other certification systems. Then everyone will be happy enough to applaud the great role they have played in reducing unemployment levels and boosting paper demand as each group generates report after counter-report.

Without wanting to get drawn too far into the debate, it seems clear that - rightly or wrongly - producers perceive the FSC as dominated by green pressure groups. Until that view is countered and a wider consensus is established, a large number of forest owners are bound to want to go their own way, even in what are generally accepted as ecologically well-managed countries such as Finland.

A single, credible forest products eco-label looks a long way off yet.